Hearing Officer Decisions 2009-2010

July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010

Whether the school division provided the student's parents access to educational records in compliance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.613?

Whether the school division unreasonably delayed in filing a request for due process following receipt of a request for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2)?

Whether the parents' mere disagreement with evaluation results entitles a parent to an IEE at public expense even though the school division timely initiates a due process proceeding?

Whether the evaluation of the student completed by the school division was "appropriate"?

Whether the school division provided the student's parents access to educational records in compliance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.613?

Whether the school division unreasonably delayed in filing a request for due process following receipt of a request for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2)?

Whether the parents' mere disagreement with evaluation results entitles a parent to an IEE at public expense even though the school division timely initiates a due process proceeding?

Whether the evaluation of the student completed by the school division was "appropriate"?

Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) utilized by the school division for the student for the 2007-2008 school year and the 2008-2009 school year were reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?

Whether any failure in implementation of the IEPs for the 2007-2008 school year and the 2008-2009 school year by the school division was so substantial as to deny the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

Whether the IEP proposed by the school division for the 2009-2010 school year was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits under the IDEA?

Whether the IEPs for extended school year programs for the summers of 2007 and 2008 were reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits under the IDEA?

Whether the March 2009, individualized education program (IEP) offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when dedicated one-on-one services were not included in the IEP by the IEP team?

Whether the student has been sufficiently evaluated so the IEP team that created the March 2009 IEP could ascertain the necessary services to ensure the student was offered a FAPE?

Whether the school division failed to comply with the child find requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when it screened the student?

Whether the student was eligible for services as a disabled student under the provisions of IDEA when the alleged medical condition did not adversely affect the student's educational performance?

Whether the student's parent was denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in meetings to determine the student's eligibility for special education services?

Whether the parent established that the school division engaged in bad faith or gross misjudgment in any failure to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?

Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) offered by the school division for the 2009-2010 school year offered sufficient services to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student?

Whether the IEP offered by the school division for the 2009-2010 school year offered services in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for the student?

Whether the IEP offered by the school division for the 2009-2010 school year offered adequate transportation services for the student to access a FAPE?

Whether the student’s individualized education program (IEP) was appropriate even though the school division seeks to place the student at his base school rather than the school he was administratively permitted to attend in previous years?

Whether the school division is prohibited from implementing the student’s IEP placement at the student’s base school when there are references in the student’s educational record that document plans for the student to attend his non-base school?

Whether the school division provided the necessary opportunity for adequate parental participation at the student’s most recent IEP meeting?

Whether the medical, emotional or family adjustment reasons offered by the parents serve to require that the student attend a particular school in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

Whether the student’s 2009 proposed IEP offered by the school division would offer a FAPE to the student?

Whether the proposed disciplinary placement by the local school division will provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for the student for the 2009-2010 school year?

Whether the local school division comprehensively evaluated the student to identify the student's special education and related services needs so that each of the student's disabilities adversely affecting educational performance were properly identified for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years?

Whether the student's behavior impeded his learning and that of others to such a degree that it was necessary for a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) to be implemented for the student to receive a FAPE?

Whether the Manifestation Determination Reviews of March 2009 and July 2009 were not completed substantially in conformity with the IDEA's regulatory requirements so that the student was denied a FAPE?

Whether the school division failed to acknowledge the student's aunt as the parent for the purposes of IDEA decision making?

Whether the student was entitled to extended school year services after release from the psychiatric center until the time of the hearing?

Whether the special transportation services required by the student’s individualized education program (IEP) offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 2008-2009 school year?

Whether the transportation services described in the student’s IEP for the 2008-2009 school year provided the student an educational benefit so that the school division offered a FAPE to the student?

Whether the student who has been identified as a student with the disability of autism has received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 2008-2009 school year when placed in a general education classroom with more than 20 students but assigned a one-on-one paraprofessional to assist the student?

Whether the student should have been offered extended school year services during the 2008-2009 school year in order to be offered a FAPE?

Whether the school division provided a continuum of alternative placements available for consideration by the student’s individualized education program (IEP) team?

Whether the school division failed to implement provisions of the student’s IEP regarding (i) written communication and quarterly reports so that there was a denial of FAPE?

Whether the school division should provide tuition reimbursement to the student’s parents for the parent’s placement of the student at a private educational institution?

Whether the student’s individualized education programs (IEPs) during a portion of the 2007-2008 and the entire 2008-2009 school years provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?

Whether the student’s parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement at a local private school?

Whether a student who had certain eye related disabilities, cognitive problem and motor function problems but completed academic task at grade level was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act?

Whether the school division discriminated against the student by failing to provide accommodations required by his disabilities and retaliated against the student based on his disabilities?

Whether the school division provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student when the Individualized Education Program (IEP) failed to accurately state the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and failed to contain reading and behavior goals that were designed to enable the student to be involve in and progress in the general curriculum?

Whether the school division should place the student at a designated private educational facility rather than placement within the school division?

Whether the school division failed to find the student eligible for services in the proper disability categories and deny him services for the 2007-2008 school year?

Whether the school division failed to provide the student requested vision and Lindamood-Bell services so that the student was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the 2007-2008 school year?

Whether the school division failed to provide occupational therapy services so as to deny the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the 2007-2008 school year?

Whether the school division’s provision of services in a general educational setting at a local high school failed to provide educational services in the least restrictive environment for the 2007-2008 school year?

Whether singly or in combination, the following possible procedure violations denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) or denied parental opportunity to participate in the individualized education program (IEP) process in the 2007-2008 school year: (1) failure to provide timely prior written notice of the denial of a requested Lindamood-Bell services goal; (2) failure to provide progress reports in the 2007-2008 school year; and/or (3) the placement of the parent’s signature on the competed extended school year IEP for the summer of 2008?

Whether the parent sustained the burden of proof in a due process hearing challenging the multidisciplinary committee’s determination that the student’s violation of a student code of conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disability?